What is the scientific evidence?

What is the scientific evidence?

Professional CGM revealed up to 7x more night-time excursions than BG meters.

Study Design

  • 47 patients (A1C > 8.0%), intensive insulin therapy.*
  • 3-day Pro CGM evaluation and blood glucose (BG) meter readings.*
  • Compared highs and lows identified with Professional CGM and BG meters.
Outcome

Published: Kaufman F, et. al. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(12):2030 – 2034. Adapted from Kaufman study.
*Sof-sensor
 

What is the scientific evidence?

Professional CGM leads to bolus/basal therapy modifications

Study Design
  • 35 type 1 pediatric patients with management issues
  • Recorded therapy modifications using Professional CGM
Outcome

  • Therapy Modifications

Published: Kaufman F, et. al. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(12):2030 – 2034. Adapted from Kaufman study.
 

What is the scientific evidence?

Professional CGM reveals postprandial hyperglycemia

Study Design

  • 56 type 1 pediatric patients, A1C 7.7%
  • Near target pre-meal glucose
Outcome

  • 90% experienced glucose levels > 180 mg/dL
  • Nearly 50% experienced glucose levels > 300 mg/dL

Boland E, et al. Limitations of conventional methods of self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1858-1862.
 

What is the scientific evidence?

Professional CGM reduces the duration of hypoglycemic events

Study Design

  • 109 adults with insulin-treated diabetes
Outcome

  • While both groups achieved A1C reductions, only the Professional CGM group enjoyed significantly shorter hypo events


Clinicians can use Professional CGM to guide therapy adjustments that can improve glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.

Tanenberg R, et al. Use of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System to Guide Therapy in Patients With Insulin-Treated Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2004;79(12):1521-1526.
 

What is the scientific evidence?

Professional CGM data can help reduce risk of macrosomia

Study Design

  • 71 pregnant women with type 1 or type 2
Outcome

  • Lower A1C in third trimester
  • Reduced risk of macrosomia


When used as an educational tool during pregnancy, Professional CGM is associated with improved glycemic control and reduced risk of macrosomia.

*Murphy HR, et al. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with diabetes: randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2008;337: a1680. Adapted from Murphy study.
 

What is the scientific evidence?

Professional CGM captures more hypoglycemic episodes vs. BG meters

Study Design

  • 40 elderly patients
  • Mean age = 75
  • 70% Type 2, 30% type 1
  • Avg. A1C = 9.3%
  • Therapy distribution:
  • Insulin only = 35%
  • Insulin + Orals = 38%
  • Orals = 8%
  • 3 days of Professional CGM
Outcome


93% of hypoglycemic episodes were unrecognized by BG meter or symptoms.

*Munshi M, Segal A, et. al. hypoglycemia among elderly patients with poor glycemic control. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(4):362 - 364. Adapted from Munshi study.
 

What is the scientific evidence?

What is the average accuracy for iPro2?

Adult
9.9%
Children
10.1%

 


How Does iPro2 achieve this accuracy?

  • iPro2 interpolates between past and future meter readings using a retrospective algorithm to calculate a calibration factor that optimizes sensor accuracy.
  • This is currently impossible for real-time systems using the same sensor. Real-time systems can only use meter readings from the past.

1Welsh J, et al. J Diabetes Sci Technology. 2012; Letter to the Editor. 475-476. MARD data based on a recent Medtronic retrospective analysis of iPro2 algorithms.